HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2003/12/08DD.
kA
In.LuIs rauZAIRIa
121HHSAllNNIS
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Monday, December 8, 2003
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Gunn
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full
name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
7. A. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS
B. AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
(1) Purchase of two Laptop Computers for City Use
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Non-paid Administrative Intern Position
B. Establish Executive Session Immediately Following Meeting To Review Union Contract
Negotiations
C. Resolution 6144, Setting the 2003 City Council Meeting Schedule
D. Resolution 6143, Step Increase for Jim Ericson
E. Resolution No. 6146 Recognizing Changing the Name of the Premise Permit Holder for
Charitable Gambling at Jake’s Sports Café in the City of Mounds View to the Twin Cities
North Chamber of Commerce
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. 7:10 PM: Public Hearing, First Reading and Consideration of Ordinance 724, An
Ordinance authorizing the City council of the City of Mounds View to set water rates and
surcharges effective with the January 2004 billings.
B. Consideration of Resolution 6148 Setting Storm Water Utility Rates for the Year 2004.
C. 7:15 PM: Public Hearing and Consideration of the Longview Estates Preliminary Plat
requested by EICHI, Inc.
D. Consideration of Resolution 6149 Adopting the 2004 Property Tax Levy and General Fund
Budget.
E. Consideration of Resolution 6150 Adopting the 2004 Budgets for Funds Other than the
General Fund.
F. Public Works Quarterly Report
G. Consideration of resolution granting authorization to defer the purchase of a Police Records
Management System to 2004, and purchase additional capitol outlay items in 2003.
H. Resolution 6153 Approving a Lease Agreement to allow TCN Chamber to Relocate its office
to the Mounds View Community Center.
City Council Meeting
December 4, 2003
Page 2
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. November 24, 2003
11 REPORTS
A. Reports of Mayor and Council
B. Reports of Staff-
C. Reports of City Attorney
12. Next Council Work Session: January 5, 2004
Next Council Meeting: January 12, 2004
Item No: 8A
Meeting Date: December 8, 2003
Type of Business: CA
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Authorization to Grant a Non-paid internship in
Administration, Resolution No. 6152
Date of Report: December 8, 2003
Background:
Recently, Ms. Jill Teetzel contacted me in regard a non-paid internship. She stated that she
had heard that Mounds View had a vacancy in an administrative position and asked if she
could perform some non-paid work for the City. She stated that her interest is in broadening
her experience in administration. Her goal is to find a position in city administration.
Currently, nearly all of her past work experience with cities has been in police departments
(see attached resume). A non-paid internship will allow Ms. Teetzel to gain insight and
experience in the operation of a city, and at the same time, the City will be able to utilize the
services of the intern to assist with special projects.
Discussion:
I have personally interviewed Ms. Teetzel and have checked references. She would be a
suitable intern for the City. Since she is currently a full time employee of another City, the
time she could spend during normal work hours, and the total number of hours, would be
limited. However, specific projects could be completed within these limitations.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends authorization is given to grant a non-paid internship to Ms. Jill Teetzel.
The intern will be expected to complete work projects as assigned by the City Administrator.
The work will include assisting staff with human recourse related personnel projects.
RESOLUTION 6152
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A NON-PAID INTERSHIP IN ADMINISTRATION TO
MS. JILL TEETZEL
WHEREAS, the City was contacted by Ms. Jill Teetzel, requesting a non paid internship
with the City of Mounds View, and;
WHEREAS, the intern would be utilized to assist staff with projects and to provide the
intern with valuable experience, and;
WHEREAS, having a non-paid intern available to the City would be of benefit to both
the city of Mounds View and the individual receiving the internship, and;
WHERAS, the intern will not receive any payment for her hours worked, and:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby authorize staff to grant a non-paid student internship to Ms. Jill Teetzel for a period of up
to one year.
Adopted this 8th day of December 2003.
_______________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST
_______________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 08D
Type of Business: CA
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business
City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution No. 6143 Resolution Approving a Step
Adjustment for Jim Ericson, Community Development
Director
Meeting Date: December 8, 2003
Jim Ericson has been working with the City, full-time, since September 30, 1996. On
November 17, 2000, Jim Ericson was promoted to Community Development Director.
As Jim Ericson’s supervisor, I have reviewed his performance and determined that Mr.
Ericson has more than satisfactorily performed his duties as Community Development
Director.
Recommendation:
To approve Jim Ericson step increase from STEP FOUR ($71,323.20) to STEP FIVE
(75,067.20), effective November 17, 2003.
RESOLUTION NO. 6143
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR JIM ERICSON,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson is a regular full-time employee who began working for
the City of Mounds View on September 30, 1996; and
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson was promoted to Community Development Director on
November 17, 2000; and
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson’s Supervisor has reviewed his performance as it relates
to the responsibilities of Community Development Director outlined in the job
description; and
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson’s Supervisor has determined that Mr. Ericson has more
than satisfactorily performed in the capacity of Community Development Director which
is documented in his performance review on file; and
WHEREAS, Jim Ericson’s Supervisor recommends the City Council approve a
wage adjustment, from STEP FOUR to STEP FIVE, consistent with the City’s
compensation policy as outlined in the City’s Personnel Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby approve a wage adjustment for Jim Ericson, as Community Development
Director, from STEP FOUR ($71,323.20) to STEP FIVE ($75,067.20), effective
November 17, 2003.
Presented this 8th day of December 2003.
(ATTEST) ____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
(SEAL)
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
:
Item No: 9C
Meeting Date: Dec 8, 2003
Type of Business: PH & CB
Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing And Consideration of a Preliminary Plat
for the Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision;
Planning Case MA03-001
Introduction:
Eichi, Inc., represented by Martin Harstad, has submitted an application for a major subdivision
of the land between Silver Lake Road and Longview Drive, north of Woodcrest Park and south
of County Road H2. The proposed subdivision would create 15 lots from the wooded, 7.14-
acre parcel, of which half is delineated wetland. Eight lots would take access from Longview
Drive and seven lots would access Silver Lake Road. All of the proposed lots satisfy the City’s
expanded subdivision requirements within a wetland zoning district (Section 1010.07, Subd. 3).
In addition to Rice Creek Watershed District approval, the proposed subdivision would
necessitate wetland alteration permit approval by the City Council.
A public hearing has been advertised for this meeting and notices were delivered to all
registered property owners within 350 feet of the Longview Estates parcel.
Previous Submittal:
The City processed a request for a major subdivision of this land in 2001, ultimately denying a
variance and the subdivision as not conforming to the City’s subdivision standards. The
original submission contemplated an eleven-lot development with each lot fronting Longview
Drive. No lots were platted fronting Silver Lake Road. The issue with the original plat was that
in a wetland district, there are minimum lot widths that exceed the standard widths, such that
instead of eleven possible lots, only eight were allowable. The applicant applied for a variance
which was denied due to lack of perceived hardship. Finally, the plat was revised to show 26
lots, well in excess of what is allowed, and the plat was denied.
Discussion:
The area known as Longview Estates is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. The proposed
subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. All the lots shown on
the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum requirements of 125-foot lot width and 20,000 square
foot lot area. Of the 15 proposed lots, nine would require filling of wetlands to create a building
pad. On lots where no wetland fill is proposed, most of the land available beyond the building
pad would be utilized for wetland mitigation purposes. No proposed home would have any
significant backyard area except Lots 1 and 2, which would have 30 feet of filled wetland
backyard. Many of the homes would be 15 feet or less from the delineated wetlands or
mitigated wetlands.
Longview Estates Council Report
December 8, 2003
Page 2
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November
5th which was continued to the November 19th meeting. The residents who spoke at the
public hearing were opposed to the development, many stressing the hydrological conditions
of the site and the potential impact of the development. Others were concerned about the
traffic impacts of the proposed 15-lot subdivision. Some Longview Drive residents questioned
the suitability of the soils for construction and what the potential impacts would be from the
extensive fill brought onto the site. Many echoed concerns regarding the loss of wildlife habitat
and a complete deforestation of the wooded site. A final issue was raised concerning liability,
insofar as who would be responsible if basements flooded or if other damages occurred.
(While certain provisions can be addressed in the development agreement, it would be difficult
to hold the developer responsible for pre-existing conditions such as wet basements, since
some property owners have already reported wet basements. The City Attorney can further
address issues regarding developer liability and financial guarantees.) The Planning
Commission directed staff to draft a resolution recommending denial on the basis that the
applicant had not submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the proposed
subdivision was feasible from a hydrological and engineering perspective. On December 3,
2003, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 745-03, a resolution recommending
denial of the subdivision.
Legal Response: The City Attorney has indicated that if a proposed preliminary plat satisfies
the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations and requirements, the preliminary plat should be
approved. The preliminary plat approval, however, can and should be conditioned upon the
applicant obtaining the necessary permits and approvals to ensure that the proposed lots are
buildable and that the development does not degrade the wetlands or area hydrology. In this
case, the subdivision will require Rice Creek Watershed District permit approval, City of
Mounds View wetland alteration permit approval, acceptable soil borings and analyses,
dedication of easements, installation of pedestrian trails and payment of the code-required
park dedication fee, etc. Other conditions may be necessary to ensure that the development
contemplated by the preliminary plat satisfies all appropriate codes, regulations and
requirements. Approving the preliminary plat does not obligate the City to approve the final
plat unless all of the imposed conditions have been addressed to the Council’s reasonable
satisfaction.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the
Longview Estates parcel as single family detached. While this designation is consistent with
the proposed subdivision, one of the stated goals under the land use component of the
Comprehensive Plan is to “Ensure that community development is compatible with features of
the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable environmental
features and natural amenities.” A subdivision should be accomplished with as little impact
and alteration as possible.
Local W ater Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan,
this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and stormwater management.
The plan, which is in the midst of being updated, did not contemplate any development on this
site. The City’s engineering consultant, SEH, indicates that careful consideration will need to
be given to ensure the subdivision and future development does not cause unintended
adverse hydrological impacts. SEH will review any and all engineering and hydrology analyses
produced and submitted by the applicants and may perform its own analysis to ensure plan
compliance.
Longview Estates Council Report
December 8, 2003
Page 3
Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate p erimeter drainage and
utility easements for each lot in the subdivision, and dedicate easements for all wetlands,
stormwater holding ponds and interior drainageways associated with the development. This
plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter, ponding and wetland easements
Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is
subject to a park dedication fee. In this case, the fee is equal to 10% of the market value of
the land. While Ramsey County assessed values are often utilized to establish the land value,
staff would recommend the City Council require a professional appraisal to determine an
appropriate value under the current development proposal. (Section 1204.02, Subd. 2 of the
Mounds View City Code a llows the Council to require a professional appraisal to establish land
value.)
Utilities: All utilities to the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10.
Water and sanitary utility stubs have already been installed to serve homes on Longview
Drive. (Ten services were installed on the west side of Longview Drive when the street was
constructed in 1966.) Water and sanitary sewer services are NOT available on the Silver Lake
Road side of the development and in all likelihood, new main lines would need to be installed
in the Silver Lake Road (County) right of way. Telephone, electric and cable would also need
to be installed underground if utility poles are not already present on the site. If poles are
present, services from the poles would be undergrounded.
Traffic: the amount of daily vehicle trips will increase on both Longview Drive and Silver Lake
Road as a result of this subdivision. The volume on Longview Drive would more than likely
increase by nearly 100 percent. While t his may seem excessive, the traffic volume generated
by this development would be less than what was originally anticipated when the street was
constructed. (Eight lots are currently proposed; ten lots were originally anticipated.) This may
be of little consolation however to the residents of Longview who, up to this point, have
enjoyed minimal traffic levels on their street. Traffic on Silver Lake Road is already heavy, yet
the additional volume generated by the seven lots will not cause any degradation in service
level or result in any measurable increase in congestion. The Ramsey County Traffic Engineer
has indicated that while they (the County) are not in favor of the proposed subdivision, they are
not in a position to deny access to Silver Lake Road. Admittedly, adding seven driveways to a
busy arterial with vehicles traveling at 40 plus miles an hour is not ideal; however two things
can be done to mitigate the dangers associated with taking access from Silver Lake Road:
(1) All properties taking access from Silver Lake Road shall have driveways that have
perpendicular stubs (“T”s) to enable residents to pull onto the street in a forward motion
rather than having to back onto the roadway.
(2) Assuming the lot configurations remain as currently presented, the driveways serving
Lots 9 and 10 and the driveways serving Lots 14 and 15 shall be combined to reduce the
number of access points onto Silver Lake Road from seven to five. The homes on these
lots would need to be constructed such that the garages were side by side.
Longview Estates Council Report
December 8, 2003
Page 4
Vegetation: The seven acre site is heavily wooded and acts as a significant wind break and
buffer to the homes on the east side of Longview Drive. The current proposal w ould require
the removal of virtually every tree outside of the wetlands, as well as many of the trees within
the wetlands. While the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance or tree
replacement policy that would protect or preserve some of the trees, the City can require that
grading activity be prohibited within its right of way to every extent possible. Only grading for
the installation of driveways should be permitted in the City’s right of way. To ensure that
trees are not inappropriately removed, the Council may require as a condition of preliminary
plat approval that the applicant submit a tree inventory of significant trees (the City Forester
will make the determination as to what constitutes a “significant” tree) prior to final plat
approval.
Trailways: The City’s policy is to require the project’s developer to install any necessary
sidewalks and trailways in conjunction with the project construction. While the
Comprehensive Plan indicates that a trailway is needed on Silver Lake Road, the City
Council will need to determine whether a trailway should be included as a condition of
preliminary plat approval. Given that there are no sidewalks or trails on Silver Lake Road in
this area, such an installation would be beneficial and would allow the new residents on
Silver Lake Road to walk safely north to County Road H2 or south to the trails in Woodcrest
Park and beyond to County Road H.
Hydrology: Approximately fifty percent of the Longview Estates site is delineated wetland, so
hydrology concerns are paramount and will need to be thoroughly reviewed before
development can be approved. One such opportunity for review is addressed in Section
1010 of the City Code which requires a wetland alteration permit if any work is proposed
within a wetland. (The standards for alteration permit review are attached for the Council’s
reference.) The developer shall apply for a city wetland alteration permit as a condition of
preliminary plat approval and shall receive approval of said permit before the final plat can be
considered. In addition, because of the size of the site and the presence of the wetlands,
Rice Creek Watershed District will need to review the proposed subdivision. The developer,
as a condition of preliminary plat approval, shall also apply for a receive approval of a
Watershed permit before the final plat can be reviewed. The final plat shall reflect all
changes required by the watershed district.
Soils: Much public discussion has been focused on the soil composition of the site and its
suitability for residential development. The applicant has stated that there would be a need
to excavate the organic soil and replace it with a more suitable material. It is uncertain how
much earth will need to be excavated to create buildable pads which is why soil borings will
need to be performed (at least one boring per lot.) The soil boring data will need to be
submitted in concert with the wetland alteration permit application for review by the City’s
engineer.
Longview Estates Council Report
December 8, 2003
Page 5
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing and discuss the proposed preliminary plat and the associated issues
surrounding the subdivision.
As was stated above, the preliminary plat satisfies the expanded minimum zoning and
subdivision requirements. While the Planning Commission has made a recommendation of
denial, the City Attorney recommends that the preliminary plat should be approved because
it does meet the City’s requirements; however the approval should be conditioned upon the
applicant’s satisfaction of other permits, applications and code requirements.
Keeping in mind the City Attorney’s comments, there are three options available to the
Council regarding this preliminary plat application:
1. Review the request and take no immediate action. This option may be preferable if the
intent is to allow for additional public comment into the record or if the Council feels
additional information is needed before an informed decision can be made.
2. Review the request and conditionally approve the preliminary plat. This option may be
premature at this point unless the Council feels no further discussion is warranted on the
matter. Staff has drafted a resolution that can be acted on or revised as deemed
necessary and appropriate by the City Council and/or the City Attorney.
3. Review the request and direct staff to draft a resolution of denial consistent with the
Planning Commission’s recommendation. Based on conversations with and feedback
from the City Attorney, staff would not recommend the Council exercise this option. If
this is the chosen course of action, the attorney would need to advise the Council of the
potential legal consequences of a denial.
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Application
2. Longview Estates Preliminary Plat (Separate Attachment)
3. Zoning Map (Exhibit. A)
4. Wetland Zoning Map (Exhibit B)
5. Location Map (Exhibit C)
6. FEMA Flood Plain Map (Exhibit D)
7. Photographic Documentation (Exhibit E)
8. Section 1010.08, Wetland Alteration Permit Standards (Exhibit F)
9. Letters from Residents
10. Planning Commission Resolution 745-03
11. City Council Resolution 6145
Proposed
Property Lines
(Approximated)
EXHIBIT A.
Zoning Map
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 LONGVIEW
ESTATES
EXHIBIT B.
Wetland Zoning Map
EXHIBIT C
Exhibit D.
FEMA MAP
EXHIBIT E
Photographic
Documentation
Looking southeast
from Silver Lake Road
toward Longview
Estates Parcel
Looking northeast
from Silver Lake
Road to Longview
Estates parcel
Looking southwest
from Longview
Drive to Longview
Estates parcel
Exhibit F
Section 1010.08, Wetland Alteration Permit Standards
Subd. 4. Standards for Approval of Permits: No permit shall be issued unless the City finds and
determines that the proposed development complies with the standards as stated in this
subdivision 4. Approval of either a wetland alteration permit or wetland buffer permit shall
constitute approval of a variance to the requirements of this Chapter 1010. (Ord. 602, 8 -25-97)
a. Minimum Alteration in Ecological and Hydrological Characteristics: A minimum alteration
of a wetland may be allowed when necessary for the use of property but only when it will not
have a substantially or significantly adverse effect, as determined by the City, upon the
ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. However, in no case shall the
restrictions set out below in Section 1010.08, subdivision 3a(1) - (6) be exceeded. Since the
extent of alteration which can be permitted is limited, the City, when considering a permit
application, shall consider equal apportionment of alteration opportunity. The alteration
opportunity within the wetland shall be allocated among property owners in proportion to the
area of wetland located within each property. (Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
(1) Any alteration shall not cause a reduction in the flood storage capacity of the
wetland. Flood storage capacity shall be determined by analysis of the runoff from the entire
developed wetland drainage district resulting from both the two (2) year and one hundred (100)
year frequency, twenty four (24)hour SCS Type I distribution storms.
(2) An alteration shall not reduce the existing water quality enhancement value of a
wetland under conditions of ultimate development, during both the two (2)year and one
hundred (100) year frequency, twenty four (24) hour SCS Type I distribution storms. Water
quality enhancement value of a wetland shall be determined using methods approved by the
City.
(3) Any alteration shall not reduce the existing wildlife habitat value of a wetland as
measured using methods approved by the City.
(4) Alterations shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
Removal of vegetation within a wetland zoning district shall be permitted only when
reasonably required for the placement of structures and use of property. (Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
(5) Alterations shall not adversely affect the water flow characteristics within the
wetland as determined by the City.
(6) Storm water runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland when in
conformance with the Local Water Management Plan1 and only when substantially, as
determined by the Council, free of sediment, debris and chemical pollutants and only at rates
which will not substantially disturb vegetation or increase turbidity as determined by the City.
(7) The proposed action shall not cause storm water runoff from the development to
take place at a rate which would exceed the rate or volume of runoff as anticipated by the City's
Local Water Management Plan2.
1 See Chapter 1302 of this Code.
2 See Chapter 1302 of this Code.
(8) The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain
substantially, as determined by the City, unchanged by the alteration of the site.
(9) No part of any sewage disposal system requiring on-land or in-ground disposal of
waste shall be located closer than one hundred feet (100') from the wetland. All on-land or
in-ground sewage disposal systems shall meet criteria set out in Minnesota Rule 6, MCAR
4.8040, Individual Sewage Treatment System Standard.
(10) Waste which would normally be disposed of at a solid or hazardous waste disposal
site or which would normally be discharged into a sewage disposal system or sewer shall not
be, directly or indirectly, discharged to a wetland.
b. Soil Conditions; Control of Erosion:
(1) Construction erosion control measures and retention facilities shall be designed to
limit soil loss from the development site to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year. Plans
and supporting documentation for s uch measures and facilities shall be developed and approved
by the City prior to commencement of construction.
(2) The applicant for the wetland alteration permit shall be required to demonstrate
that, after the development is completed, the conditions on the site will be stabilized such that
the yearly soil loss from the site will not be greater than five-tenths (0.5) ton per acre per year.
(3) Sediment and soil loss shall be determined utilizing the Universal Soil Loss
Equation as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
Technical Field Guide, as amended from time to time, as provided for Ramsey Soil and Water
Conservation District.
(4) Only fill substantially free of chemical pollutants and wastes, as determined by the
City, may be used.
(5) A building's minimum elevation permitted in a wetland zoning district shall be as
defined in the Local Water Management Plan3.
(6) No alteration shall be allowed which will endanger the health, safety or welfare of
persons or which may result in unusual road maintenance costs or utility line breakages due to
soil limitations, including high frost action.
c. Scheduling of Work: Work in the wetland will not be performed during the breeding season
of water fowl or fish spawning season.
d. Size of Area: The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the
proposed action.
3 See Chapter 1302 of this Code.
Subd. 5. Standards for Denial of Permits: No wetland alteration or wetland buffer permit may be
granted which would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the
property is located or which will: (Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
a. Result in incompatible land uses or which would be detrimental to surface and ground
water resources. Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
b. Increase the financial burdens imposed on the community through increasing floods and
overflow of water onto land areas within this City or onto land areas adjacent to Rice Creek.
(Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
c. Be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives for the City or which will
increase or cause danger to life or property. (Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
d. Be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land uses compatible with the
preservation of the natural land forms, vegetation and wetlands within the City. (Ord. 602, 8-
25-97)
e. Include development of land and water areas essential to continue the temporary
withholding of rapid runoff of surface water which contributes to downstream flooding or water
pollution or development of land and water areas which provide ground water recharge or
development which diminishes the land or water which are necessary to carry increased flows
of storm water following periods of heavy precipitation. (Ord. 602, 8-25-97)
DEAN & KARIN HAASE
5181 Longview Drive, Mounds View MN 55112
Home: (763) 792 - 2272 Work: (763) 574 - 7374 E-Mail: haasedean@msn.com
November 6th, 2003
Attn.: Jim Ericson ( and Mounds View City Council )
RE: November 5th 2003 Public Hearing & Eichi, Inc. Longview Estates Proposal
Dear Mounds View City Council,
After attending the Mounds View public hearing on November 6th, 2003 my wife and I are submitting this
letter after hearing the issues. (Frankly, we also are surprised that after being turned down numerous times by
the Mounds View Planning Commission, Mounds View City Council, and Rice Creek Watershed District,
that this issue keeps coming up.)
Karin and I are both very opposed to the proposal of the Harstad Companies & Eichi Inc. to further develop
the property known as Mueller Addition Lot 4, Block 1. This development is known as the Longview Estates
subdivision. The reasons are listed below.
1.) Local area water table effects.
This issue has been one of the largest debates of this proposed subdivision. Most people who live on
Longview Drive opposite from the proposed development have witnessed a marshy wetland with standing
water on the property directly across from their existing homes. Some have already had water in their
basements due not to improper construction, but to unnaturally high levels of the area’s water table. Over
the last 2 years Karin and I had our sump pump in our basement running every 20 - 30 minutes to take
away the water that existed due to the high water table. Even with the sump pump we could still see damp
spots on the basement floor where the water was trying to seep up through cracks in the concrete, (We are
one of the few people in the area who even have a sump pump.) (People will say that this was the 100
year wet spring with all the snow, but what happens next time when we get this kind of winter followed
by the types of melting that we saw last spring? Pay close attention to what has been happening with the
flooding in the midsection of the country in the last decade and it should be painfully obvious that this is
becoming a more common problem that no-one has ever planned for.) What we want assured to us is that
if houses are built into this existing area that we will not have ANY problems with wet basements!
Otherwise, we too want to know who our lawyer should contact as well because the damages will NOT
come out of our pockets.
2.) Mueller Addition Lot 4 Block 1, soil stability & soil composition.
Again, most residents along Longview Drive know the proposed subdivision land as marshy and unstable.
(Reference the house just built on the South end of Longview Drive who has already had driveway
settling and other building problems due to the fact that the ground underneath the property was not stable
enough for the structure on top of it.) Mr. Harstad has claimed that he will have to dig out a minimal
amount of land for the property to be suitable for building, have any engineers supported this claim? Also,
Mr. Harstad has claimed that he will have his engineers, the city engineers, and also the Rice Creek
Watershed engineers monitoring the project to insure that there are no problems. This statement also
makes Karin and I very nervous because where were the engineers who built Silver Lake Road on the
west side of the proposed property? This road has settled tremendously due to the soil base upon which it
also was built. It is like a roller coaster in places! I would hope that the engineers involved with that
project had not intended it to be that way! If they didn’t, that would prove my point that engineers also
make mistakes and when this happens on the proposed Longview Estates subdivision where should the
current residents of Longview Drive send their damage claims to have them covered. (By the builder’s
insurance company I would hope.) That would incidentally not be Mr. Harstad as was pointed out in
detail in previous planning commission meetings before. After Mr. Harstad sells the property, to
whatever builder has the highest price I am sure, there is no assurance that these builders will stand up to
what Mr. Harstad has claimed in the past. They will do whatever is profitable for them, and we are afraid
that it will ultimately fall upon us, the other property owners along Longview Drive who will sacrifice the
ultimate expense of damage to our existing homes due to actions of the land developers.
3.) Property values of proposed housing if minimum lot width variance is passed.
We are also concerned about the area’s property values if the variance for reduced minimum lot widths is
passed on this property. Mr. Harstad has claimed from the beginning that the proposed homes that he
would have built on the site would be worth $300k to $350k and this would greatly appreciate the values
of the homes in the surrounding area. We feel that he is full of lies. We just had our house re-appraised
not long ago for $165k and I know that most of the others in the surrounding area are very close to this
same range. The appraiser even told us that no-one in their right mind would build a $300-$350k home in
this area because it would be so out of line with the surrounding properties. Secondly, the proposed plan
shows eleven houses being built in this area, they would literally be on top of one another with no real
yards to speak of if they were indeed $300-$350k houses. Again, very unlike all the other properties in
the neighborhood. If these houses have to be built with no basements due to the water table then the
values of the proposed houses will be much, much less than Mr. Harstad has claimed. The possibility also
exists that this could even reduce the value of the current houses that already exist in the neighborhood.
4.) City’s responsibility for development along Silver Lake Road.
Finally, one thing that was not discussed at the meeting on November 5th, 2003 was the proposed
development along Silver Lake Road. Again, Karin and I don’t want development on either side of this
property! What came to mind after the meeting was the development along Silver Lake Road. During the
meeting it was discussed that The County disapproves of adding driveways to Silver Lake Road, and the
proposal indicates a “T” style driveway for safe access for cars. However, in the report it was identified
that “No proposed home would have any significant backyard area except lots 1 & 2”. If the seven new
homes along Silver Lake Road house new or young families with children, and the homes have no
backyard, then the children or homeowners will be forced to spend their time in the front yards of these
homes. This seems like a very risky proposition given the heavy traffic that can occur along Silver Lake
Road. This is not a calculated risk, but only a matter of time before someone in one of those homes would
be involved in a traffic related accident. So my question would be in regards to the city’s responsibility to
the potential new residents of these homes along Silver Lake Road. It seems to me that knowing the
limitations of the design of the property that approving such a proposed development would put the city at
risk of a negligence lawsuit. Knowing the location and the activities that will be occurring on these new
residential homes, the City would be enabling these citizens to live/play in their residences with a much
higher risk of injury or death than other residents of the city enjoy.
In conclusion Karin and I are asking the Mounds View City Counsel & the Planning Commission to deny
the Harstad Companies’ & Eichi, Inc. proposed preliminary plat. We feel that there are other very serious
issues with building on this property that would make it very unattractive for Mr. Harstad to build on it. I
do not want everyone to ignore the real issues of building on this property which include the
serious technical issues as mentioned above.
Sincerely,
Dean I. Haase & Karin M. Haase
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 745-03
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
PROPOSED LONGVIEW ESTATES MAJOR SUBDIVISION
PLANNING CASE NO. MA03-001
WHEREAS, Marty Harstad of EICHI, Inc., representing owner Keith Harstad, has
applied for a major subdivision for a single family residential subdivision on land located
west of Longview Drive, south of County Road H2, east of Silver Lake Road and north of
Woodcrest Park; and,
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat date-stamped October 30, 2003 contemplates a
fifteen lot subdivision, with eight lots fronting Longview Drive and seven lots fronting Silver
Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1, Mueller Addition
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the adopted
Comprehensive Plan designates the parcel for low-density residential development; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is completely within a Wetland Zoning District;
and,
WHEREAS, within a wetland zoning district, the minimum lot width for single-family
residential lots is 125 feet and the minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Zoning Map
2. Planning Application
3. Wetland Zoning District Map
4. FEMA Map
5. Preliminary Plat, date stamped Oct 30, 2003
6. Staff Report
Resolution 745-03
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
November 5 and continued said hearing until November 19, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following finding of fact related to the submitted Longview Estates
preliminary plat:
1. The proposed fifteen-lot subdivision is situated completely within a wetland zoning
district.
2. The minimum subdivision standards within a wetland zoning district are 125-foot
wide lots with lot areas of 20,000 square feet.
3. Half of the 7.14 acre wooded parcel is delineated as wetlands.
4. Approximately 20,320 square feet of wetlands would be filled to create the fifteen
lots with a total alteration of more than 60,000 square feet of area within the wetland
zoning district.
5. Neither soil borings nor a hydrology analysis were submitted to support the
applicant’s request for the preliminary plat approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon the above findings of fact and its review of the documentation
presented, does hereby recommend denial of the proposed Longview Estates major
subdivision.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs
staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 3rd day of December, 2003
____________________________________
Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson
Attest:
____________________________________
James Ericson, Community Dev. Director
(Seal)
RESOLUTION NO. 6145
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF THE LONGVIEW ESTATES MAJOR SUBDIVISION
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA03-001
WHEREAS, Marty Harstad of EICHI, Inc., representing property owner Keith
Harstad, has applied for a major subdivision for a single family residential subdivision on
land located west of Longview Drive, south of County Road H2, east of Silver Lake Road
and north of Woodcrest Park; and,
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat date-stamped October 30, 2003 contemplates a
fifteen lot subdivision, with eight lots fronting Longview Drive and seven lots fronting Silver
Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1, Mueller Addition
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and the adopted
Comprehensive Plan designates the parcel for low-density residential development; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is within a Wetland Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, within a wetland zoning district, the minimum lot width for single-family
residential lots is 125 feet and the minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat satisfies the minimum expanded
subdivision requirements as identified in Chapter 1010 and Titles 1100 and 1200 of the
Mounds View Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents
regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Preliminary Plat, date stamped Oct 30, 2003
3. Zoning Map
4. Wetland Zoning District Map
5. Location Map
6. FEMA Map
7. Photographic Documentation
8. Letters Submitted by Residents
9. Planning Commission Resolution 745-03
10. Staff Report
Resolution 6145
Page 2
WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, all subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication fee requirements;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this
preliminary plat on December 8, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council
approves the preliminary plat for the Longview Estates major subdivision, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the City Council considering the Longview Estates final plat, the applicant
shall perform or complete the following:
a. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a watershed permit through
Rice Creek Watershed District.
b. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a City of Mounds View
Wetland Alteration Permit.
c. The a pplicant shall submit detailed soil borings and hydrology reports relating to
the subject property.
2. A real estate appraisal shall be conducted on the property by an independent
appraiser to determine the market rate land value of the site to establish the park
dedication fee.
3. A tree inventory shall be performed to identify and locate significant trees on the
site.
4. The applicant shall be prohibited from removing trees and grading within the
Longview Drive right of way except for those areas identified for driveways and
except as expressly authorized by the City Council.
5. All homes on Silver Lake Road shall have turn-arounds (or “T”s) and shall share
driveways to whatever extent possible to minimize the number of additional access
points on Silver Lake Road.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining access permits from Ramsey
County for any and all work occurring within the County right of way.
7. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement which sets forth all of the
terms, conditions, requirements, agreements, guarantees and plans for the orderly
development of Longview Estates.
8. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than January, 1, 2005 or
the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void.
9. The Final Plat shall reflect a trailway or sidewalk in a location or locations identified
by the City Council.
10. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be
located underground.
Adopted this 8th day of December, 2003
_____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No. 9F
Type of Business: CB
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Public Works Department Quarterly Report
Meeting Date: December 8, 2003
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
QUARTERLY REPORT
DECEMBER 8, 2003
Presented to:
THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Jerry Linke
City Council Member Sherry Gunn
City Council Member Rob Marty
City Council Member Gary Quick
City Council Member Roger Stigney
Compiled by:
THE MOUND VIEW PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES
Steve Dazenski Marla Manypenny
Nick Fleischhacker Bruce Meehan
Tim Fredberg Tim Pittman
Bill Hanggi Mike Schnur
Jim Hess Pete Szurek
John Hughes Steve Vacek
Tracy Juell Jeff Wienke
Greg Lee
In accordance with and as prescribed by Chapter 6, Section 6.02, Subdivision 3
of the Mounds View City Charter, the Public Works Department respectfully
submits to the City Council for their review the following Quarterly Report.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
2
PROJECT UPDATES
2003 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – PHASE I
On October 21, 2002 the City Council authorized the preparation of a preliminary engineering
report to determine the need for repairs, scope of work, estimated costs, and feasibility of
conducting a street improvement project. The street segments being evaluated and considered
for this project are identified as those that are north of County Road H2 and southwest of County
Road 10, not including those street segments that have been recently upgraded or are County
Roads: Pleasant View Drive, Spring Lake Road, Silver Lake Road, Long Lake Road, and Country
Road I.
A draft preliminary engineering report was submitted to the City Council on September 2, 2003.
Assessment Policy
At a City Council meeting, on February 10, 2003, and again at a City Council Work Session, on
October 6, 2003, the concept of assessing for neighborhood street major maintenance projects
on a unit basis, as opposed to a front footage basis, was introduced. Staff recommended that the
City Ordinance be revised to allow for assessing on a unit basis for a street major maintenance
project. On October 13th and 27th, 2003, the City Council approved the addition to the City
Ordinance to allow for a unit assessment method.
Neighborhood Meeting
A Neighborhood Meeting was held on November 6, 2003 to introduce this project to the public
and to receive feedback. The meeting was advertised and notices were directly mailed to all
affected property owners.
Approximately forty (40) people were in attendance. At the meeting, a summary report was
distributed; this was a forty-five (45) page report, which included all the details of the proposed
project: maps, mock assessment role, the newly adopted Roadway Major Maintenance Financing
Policy, and a feedback form. This data was also made available on the City’s web site and at City
Hall.
The meeting consisted of the presentation and a consequential question and answer session.
The presentation included a slide show. The meeting went extremely well and the residents
asked some very good questions. The residents were also encouraged to read the summary
report fully and provide the City with feedback by filling out the “Feedback Form” attached to the
back. As of December 1, 2003 the City has received a total of seventeen (17) responses -
fourteen (14) marked as being generally in favor of the project, two (2) generally opposed, and
one (1) not sure.
In the area west of Silver Lake Road, all except two responses indicated that they would prefer
concrete curb and gutter. One prefers bituminous curb and gutter and the other does not want
any curbs.
What’s Next
Staff will be meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District the week of December 8th to discuss
any requirements they may pose on this project. Staff will also seek input from Ramsey County
and the Saint Paul Water Board. Once comments are received the feasibility report will be
finalized and presented to the City Council for approval. Staff anticipates that the report will be
ready by the first meeting in January.
Silver Lake Woods Condominiums – Dedication of Private Streets
On May 6, 2002 the issue of dedication of private streets was discussed at a City Council Work
Session. The City Council seemed to somewhat agree on the proposed policy: however no action
was taken. On July 11, 2002, Staff met with Cliff Ash and Mike Berke of the Silver Lake Woods
3
Homeowners Association, outlining the requirements the City would be looking for in order to
dedicate their streets to the City.
The City received a proposed draft agreement for Public Dedication of Streets and Utilities,
drafted by J. Patrick Brinkman of the law firm Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon, & Vogt dated December
2, 2002. A copy was also forwarded to the City’s legal counsel, Scott Riggs.
Should this project proceed, and based on City Council’s direction, Staff will facilitate meetings
with the Homeowners Association and their legal counsel to discuss and identify any and all
issues associated with dedication of private streets. The last time this topic was discussed with
the Council was at the Work Session on May 6, 2002.
2003 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – PHASE II
On October 13, 2003 the City Council authorized the preparation of a preliminary engineering
report to determine the need for repairs, scope of work, estimated costs, and feasibility of
conducting a street improvement project. The street segments being evaluated and considered
for this project are identified as those streets located south of County Road H2 and west of Silver
Lake Road.
On October 15, 2003 a notice was sent to residents in the area, informing them that the City
would be collecting data associated with this project. Staff will be meeting with the consultant the
week of December 15th to coordinate the project. At that time Staff will also review the data
collected thus far and discuss any other data sources to ensure that all necessary data has been
collected.
H2 STREET MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECT
The County Road H2 Project is nearly complete. There remains a punchlist of items that will need
to be addressed in the spring of 2004 in order to finalize the project. Seeding the ponding areas,
re-setting some signage, saw and sealing, and cleaning the storm sewer system are the main
things on the list. Significant trees that were removed as part of this project will need to be
replaced. The City forester has developed the tree replacement plan recommending species,
size, and locations for replanting, and will oversee its implementation in the spring of 2004.
There does remain an issue regarding the paving of the final wear course. Staff has met with the
subcontractor, Mid West Asphalt, and put them on notice that the final wear course is not
acceptable to the City. The mid seams do not match up east of Silver Lake Road. Nor was the
elevation of the final wear course correct. Manhole covers and gate valve boxes ended up too low
in relation to the final wear course. Mid West Asphalt will be submitting a proposal for correcting
this problem.
CITY HALL REHABILITATION PROJECT
On January 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5935 authorizing the preparation
of a Preliminary Feasibility Report for this project. The report will consist of two main components:
Space Needs Assessment and Physical Needs Assessment.
Staff met with representatives of the City’s engineering firm of Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc.
(SEH) to discuss the space needs on March 20,2003. A physical needs assessment was
performed on Thursday, April 24, 2003.
The consulting firm of SEH has finished the physical assessment and space needs study for the
City Hall building. A presentation was given on November 3, 2003. The presentation focused on
the “big picture” or total rehabilitation. The City Council indicated that they were more interested
in the list of deficient items rather than the total rehabilitation at this time.
4
Staff will be meeting with SEH on December 23, 2003 to discuss details of developing a list. Prior
to then, representatives of SEH will be visiting City Hall to review a few electrical details. It is
anticipated that the draft list/report will be submitted to the City in early January, 2004.
The report, when finished, will be used to assist the City in planning for future improvements to
the building as well as point out any existing deficiencies that will need immediate attention.
COUNTY ROAD H PATHWAY – FROM EDGEWOOD DRIVE TO THE WEST CITY LIMITS
On October 27, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6118 rejecting all current bids,
authorizing Staff to re-advertise for bids, and establish a new bid date for the County Road H
Sidewalk Project. A bid date of January 8, 2004 was established. The City will be receiving bids
for two segments: From Silver Lake Road to the West City Limits and from Silver Lake Road to
Knollwood Drive. These were set up as two completely separate bids. The City Council will have
the option of awarding the contract for either bid or rejecting the bids and not awarding a contract.
Information pertaining to the County Road H sidewalk status will be included in the
January/February issue of the Mounds View Matters. Staff anticipates presenting this to the City
Council for action on January 26, 2004.
PATHWAY PROJECT – ADDITIONAL SEGMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION
The City’s Pathway Plan was discussed at the February 3, 2003 City Council Work Session. In
addition to the pathway along County Road H from Edgewood Drive to the west City limits, the
City Council identified four pathway segments they would consider to be a priority. These were:
• Along the north side of County Road H2 - from County Road 10 to Program Avenue.
• Along the east side of Edgewood Drive - from County Road H2 to Edgewood Middle
School.
• Along the north side of County Road 10 - adjacent to the wetland area located just
southeast of Walgreen’s store.
• Along the south side of County Road 10 – from Woodale Drive to the south, connecting
into the existing trail.
The two segments along County Road 10 were completed in the fall of 2003 as a change order to
the County Road H2 Project.
Staff would like to discuss the first two segments with the City Council. Staff has investigated both
sites and found that the roadway segments were excessive in width. This, coupled with the
narrow boulevards and current obstructions, would make the installation of a sidewalk or pathway
in these areas problematic for both the City and the adjacent residents.
Staff is recommending that the City install pedestrian walkways along these segments at the time
the streets are scheduled for major maintenance. This would allow for the option of changing one
or both curblines to accommodate a pathway. This would provide the best long-term solution for
the City and the people who use and live along these street segments.
In lieu of constructing these two segments, Staff is presenting the option of pursuing the
construction of a pathway along Silver Lake Road from County Road H to County Road 10. The
County has scheduled a mill and overlay for this segment of Silver Lake Road in 2004. Although
the County project will not involve or disturb the boulevard areas, it still would be advantageous to
coordinate a new sidewalk/pathway with the repaving of the street.
5
2003 Street Improvement Project Sidewalks
There are three additional sidewalk/pathway segments located within the area proposed for the
2003 Street Improvement Project Area. These are:
• Groveland Road – from County Road I to County Road 10
• Knollwood Drive – from County Road H to County Road H2
• Woodcrest Drive – from Knollwood Drive to Silver Lake Road
Staff would like direction from the City Council on these potential segments. They are included in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the City Council wishes to construct these segments, it would
be advantageous to do so as part of the adjacent street project.
WATER TOWER REHABILITATION
The Water Tower Project has been completed. This included: interior structural changes, interior
wet coating (partial replacement as recommended, including surface preparation and coating
application), interior dry coating (spot surface preparation, as recommended, and paint
application), and exterior coating system (complete power wash spot surface preparation, as
prescribed, and touch-up paint application).
The project went quite smoothly, without too many problem or issues. One item did cause some
problems. During the time the lower two segments of the exterior column were being painted,
Asian Lady Beetles flew onto the water tower and became embedded in the paint. To correct this,
the contractor sanded and repainted these areas.
WELL NUMBER 4 REHABILITATION
Well Number 4 has been out of service since 1992, due to water quality issues. It is located at the
southeast corner of Edgewood Drive and Hillview Road. The cost and issues of making it
operational are being studied by the engineering firm of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson Inc. (SEH). A
water quality analysis of the water contained within the aquifer from which Well Number 4 pumps
was performed. The tests indicated that the contaminants can be effectively treated at Treatment
Plant No. 1.
A draft feasibility report, including cost estimates to bring Well No. 4 on line, will be submitted by
December 24, 2003. Staff will present the draft report to City Council and seek direction for
further action.
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ACCESS STUDY
On October 6, 2003 all data collected pertaining to the manufactured home access study was
presented to the City Council. On October 13, 2003 the City Council approved the feasibility
reports for the manufactured Home Park second access. On November 3, 2003 Staff presented
opinions from the City’s legal counsel pertaining this matter. These opinions stated that the City’s
legal authority to require a second access is somewhat limited. Based on these opinions, the City
will not be requiring a second access at the two parks that currently have only one access.
However, City Council recognizes the merit of having a second access from a public safety and
somewhat from a traffic circulation standpoint. They directed staff to work with the property
owners to facilitate the construction of a second access if so desired. Staff will be meeting with
the property manager of the Mounds View Manufactured Home Community to discuss his
willingness to participate in such a project.
TRUNK HIGHWAY 10 NOISE WALL AND BERMING PROJECT
On July 14, 2003 the City Council approved Resolution No. 6052 authorizing the firm of Ulteig
Engineers, Incorporated to assist in the preparation of plans and cost estimates for noise
abatement measures (walls and berms) along Trunk Highway 10.
6
As the first phase in developing a plan to provide noise abatement along TH10, several meetings
were conducted to discuss the proposed project and solicit input. Staff and representatives of
Ulteig Engineers met with representatives of Mn/DOT on August 13, 2003. Next, a meeting was
conducted with Ramsey County on August 28, 2003. And finally, Staff and representatives of
Ulteig Engineers met with Rice Creek Watershed District and their engineering consultant on
October 21, 2003. Ulteig Engineers is currently working on developing a draft plan. It is
anticipated that this will be available in late January/ early February 2004.
WELL REHABILITATION PROGRAM -WELLS NO. 1 AND 2
Bids were received and opened on December 3, 2002 for the rehabilitation of Wells No. 1 and 2.
The successful bidder was Keys Well Drilling Company. The notice to proceed was issued on
December 20th and work commenced early in January of 2003. Staff had the opportunity to
inspect the pump and piping at the contractor’s shop and the necessary repairs and replacements
were decided upon. Both wells were videotaped to their full depths. The videotape did not show
any necessary repairs for the casing of the wells. The videotape also showed that the depth of
the wells had not changed since the last maintenance, so bailing was not required. Both wells
have been reinstalled, tested, and are back in operation.
The project was completed on schedule. Wells No. 1 and 2 will not be up for maintenance for
another 7-8 years.
WELL REHABILITATION PROGRAM -WELLS NO. 3 AND 5
Wells No. 3 and 5 are scheduled for rehabilitation in 2004. As with wells No. 1 and 2, Staff will be
writing the specification, obtaining bids, and inspecting so as to avoid consultant charges. The
City will also be draining the 2 million gallon ground reservoir for inspection in the spring of 2004.
As a result, the rehabilitation of wells No. 3 and 5 are scheduled for the fall of 2004.
ADDITIONAL UPDATES
COUNTY ROAD 10 RECONSTRUCTION AND REVITALIZATION PLAN – IMPLEMENTATION
PHASE
On September 26, 2002, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5824 formally adopting the
County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Plans as prepared by URS Corporation.
The next step in the process is to develop an implementation plan. On October 20, 2003 Staff
met internally to develop a strategy for implementation. This item has been placed on the January
5th Work Session Agenda. Dan Solar, Traffic Engineer, and Ken Haider, Public Works Director
for the County will be in attendance. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain direction from the
City Council as to what they see as a priority in im plementing the County Road 10 Plan.
As previously discussed with the City Council, one of the first steps will be to hire an engineering
firm to survey the corridor and develop a pathway alignment throughout its length on both sides.
Other questions that will be posed to the City Council are:
• “When should the emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) devices be installed in each
traffic signal?” These allow emergency vehicles to safely navigate through the signalized
intersections without conflict from opposing lanes of traffic.
• “What intersections does the City Council see as a as higher priority?” The plan calls for
several intersections to be upgraded and the geometrics to be changed.
The goal of the January 5th meeting is to have a fair understanding between the City Council and
County as to what the general implementation plan should be. Staff will then send out requests
7
for proposals (RFP’s) to have an engineering firm start assisting both the City and the County on
implementation of the various items.
DNR REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRAILWAY GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
On December 3, 2003, Staff attended an open house meeting to discuss the Department of
Natural Resources’ 2004 Local Trailway Grant Program. Application must be in by February 27,
2004. The maximum grant amount is $100,000. The project must be completed by December 31,
2005.
Given the criteria for a successful application, the only possible project the City could apply for is
the pathways along the County Road 10 corridor. Trailways less than ten (10) feet in width are
not eligible for grant monies.
Staff recommends that the City apply for both federal and local grants for the pathways along the
County Road 10 corridor. In order to be a successful applicant, Staff will need to make a case of
these pathways providing a connection between residential and commercial sites and other
regional nature sites such as Rice Creek and the proposed regional nature park to be located on
the TCAAP site.
NPDES PHASE II
The City has submitted its NPDES Phase II permit, which included the Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer permit and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). As part of the
SWPPP, the City has formalized and started to implement forty-eight (48) storm water pollution
prevention programs.
As part of the requirements of the NPDES Phase II permit, the City must conduct an annual
public informational meeting. This is scheduled for January 26, 2004 at a regular City Council
meeting. The informational meeting is intended to provide the public with an update on what
goals were met that calendar year and to allow an opportunity for the public to comment and
provide input on the storm water program.
LONG RANGE STREET MAJOR MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Public Works Department has started the necessary data collection for developing a long-
range street major maintenance plan. The goal is to have the draft long range plan completed by
spring of 2004. The plan will show which neighborhood streets the City intends to upgrade, the
planned year for the upgrade, and the estimated costs.
The first step is to review all of the street segment that are candidates for street major
maintenance, determine their deficiencies, and then assign a condition rating. This is known as
Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Many cities hire a company to assist in developing pavement
rating. Mounds View has done so in the past. However, for 2003 and 2004, this activity is being
conducted by Staff as a cost saving measure. Another piece of data that will be collected is a
survey of all property owners who own property on streets that are candidates for major
maintenance. This will consist of a simple question posed on a separate card and will be included
in the utility bill for these properties. And, finally, the last piece of data being collected is utility
data. This will include utility condition data and historical utility case failures.
The combination of the street condition data, utility condition data, and knowledge of whether a
property owner is in favor or a project or not, will provide Staff and the City Council the necessary
data to develop a plan that will address the condition of the City’s streets in the most cost
effective and politically acceptable manner possible.
8
TRAFFIC COUNTS
Every other year the City of Mounds View is required by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to conduct Traffic Counts at specified locations. In 2003 the City conducted traffic
counts at a total of forty-eight (48) locations throughout the City. Thirty-six (36) locations were
required by Mn/DOT. Twelve other locations were selected to obtain traffic data related to specific
City projects or issues.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION UPDATE
For the past several months the Parks and Recreation Commission has been working on
developing a PARKS NEEDS ANALYSIS. This analysis was performed by reviewing all City
Parks and developing a list of needs or deficiencies within the parks. This list was then separated
in to three main categories:
A. Maintenance (do now)
B. Budget (budgeted item for 2004, 2005, or 2006)
C. Long Term (add to Capital Improvement Program)
For the next step, Staff assigned costs to each of the items in categories B and C. The
Commission reviewed the list again and deleted any item that was not, or appeared not to be,
cost effective. Category C items were assigned to a year when the Commission thought it should
be implemented. Category B items were separated in to three groups based on the year the
Commission recommend implementation – 2004, 2005, or 2006. A final version of the PARKS
NEEDS ANALYSIS was provided to the City Council on October 21st of this year. Additional
copies are available upon Council request.
Other Issues and Activities the Parks and Recreation Commission has been or is working on:
Facility Guide Update
No Smoking in City Parks – review a request
Park Usage Survey - developed a reporting form
LAKESIDE LIONS PARK
Several new changes may be occurring to the Lakeside Lions Park:
Gazebo
The Lions Club is providing funds to construct a gazebo in the Lakeside Lions Park. It is proposed
to be 39 feet in diameter with a two-tiered roof with louvered cupola and a 25 year shingled roof
with tongue & groove pine roof deck. It is proposed to be built in the open space near the south
end of the ball field. The estimated cost is $53,691.80.
Fishing Pier
The DRN has a program entitled, “Fishing in the Neighborhood” (FIN). As part of this program,
the DNR has dedicated a grant to the Lakeside Lions Park for constructing a floating fishing pier.
The pier would be 104 feet in length and have a “T” section on the end. The estimated cost is
$22,000. The DNR Grant is for $12,200. The remaining $10,000 would need to be raised from
several sources, some of which may include: Spring Lake Park Lions, Fridley Lions, and
donations. The Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission is in support of this project. The
DNR will also be stocking the lake this spring with large mouth bass and black crappies.
Parking Lot Upgrade
The Parking lot at Lakeside Lions Park is in extremely poor condition. To explore the costs of
upgrading it and expanding it slightly, the reconstruction of this parking lot will be added to the bid
for the 2003 Street Project. Once bids are received, the cities of Spring Lake Park and Mounds
9
View can decide if this is a project worth pursuing. At this time, no commitment has been made
by either city to this project.
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
PUBLIC WORKS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES VACANT POSITIONS - MECHANIC
The City received a total of twenty-seven (27) applications for the vacant mechanic position. On
November 10, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6132 hiring Steven Vacek as the
Public Works Mechanic.
Mr. Vacek was formally employed by Hudson Chrysler, diagnosing and repairing vehicles that
were received for service. Mr. Vacek had also worked for the State of Minnesota as a mechanic.
Mr. Vacek is a certified ASE Master Automotive Technician. He also holds other accreditations:
International Mobile Air Conditioning Association Certified, Certificate in Automotive Electrical and
Transmissions from Saint Paul Technical Vocational Institution, and employee of the year from
the State Travel Management Division. Mr. Vacek also has a Class B driver’s license and has
operated dump trucks and skid loaders as an employee of Crete-wood Construction.
Mr. Vacek started on November 24, 2003. Public Works would like to welcome him!
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOALS FOR 2004
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS AND REVIEW: To analyze the operations and
structure of the Public Works Department, to make it more efficient, to better serve the needs of
the citizens and businesses of Mounds View, and to better achieve the goals and objectives set
by the City Council.
UPDATE LONG TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP). DEVELOP DETAILED CIP SHEETS
DEVELOP A LONG RANGE STREET MAINTENANCE PLAN, PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION
PLAN, PATHWAY REHABILITATION PLAN, PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PLAN
DEVELOP A STORM SEWER / SURFACE REPAIR PROGRAM
DEVELOP A STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
DEVELOP AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 10 REDEVELOPMENT
AND REVITALIZATION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ILLICIT WATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM
DEVELOP A FILING SYSTEM / RECORD RETENTION PROGRAM
DEVELOP POLICIES
DEVELOP PROCEDURES
DEVELOP A NEW GRADING PERMIT SYSTEM
DEVELOP A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM
10
MAJOR PURCHASES
Replacement Dump Truck Resolution No. 5939 February 10, 2003
Replacement Front End Loader Resolution No. 5952 February 24, 2003
Replacement Asphalt Roller Resolution No. 6085 September 8, 2003
Replacement Larger Format Plotter Resolution No. 6120 October 27, 2003
SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Step Increase for Peter Szurek. On October 13, 2003 Mr. Szurek was approved for the
step increase from Level C to Level D in the Parks Division of the Public Works
Department
Gary Kardell Retirement. Gary Kardell resigned from the Streets Division of the Public
Works Department as of October 31, 2003. Mr. Kardell had been employed by the City
for over 29 years. Congratulations to Gary! And thanks from the City, Staff, and the
citizens of Mounds View for your years of service!
Fluoridation Award. In November, the City of Mounds View received the 2002 Water
Fluoridation Quality Award from the Minnesota Department of Health and Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The award was recognition for successfully maintaining
optimal fluoride levels and meeting the fluoridation monitoring requirements of the State
of Minnesota for all 12 month of 2002
PUBLIC WORKS 3rd QUARTER REPORT July - September 2003
Water Department
• 209,808,000 Gallons Pumped
• 0 water main breaks
• Repaired four service lines
• 5224 Red Oak Drive
• 5135 Eastwood Drive
• 2608 Ridge Lane
• 7191 Knollwood Drive
• Went on peak control electric shut off 2 times
• State samples (HAA5, THM, Radon and Fluoride)
• Assisted in creating and sending out the CCR report
• Repaired 51 MXU’s 14 MIU’s and replaced 2 meter chambers
• Installed a 6” water valve at 5167 Red Oak Dr.
• Completed lubricating fire hydrant nozzle sections
• Switched to running the City’s water production off of discharge pressure
vs. tower elevation
11
• Made preparations for water tower rehabilitation
• Ran test run on hooking up to New Brighton water supply
• Constructed report on the City’s meter reading system
• Crow worked the State Fair water booth
• Gathered information on off-peak electric consumption and savings
•
Well # 1
Did not run in September due to switching to discharge pressure
Well # 2
Replaced cooling line on cat engine
Well # 3
Repaired ice machine
Well # 4
Removed chlorine tanks, injectors, and cylinder units
Well # 5
Repaired main gates
Rebuilt chlorine injector
Rebuilt SO2 Cylinder unit
Well # 6
Repaired main gate
Replaced incandescent lights with fluorescent lights
Ran new ¼” line on control valve
Booster Station
Had service work done on the Onan generator
Sanitary Sewer
• Cleaned and Televised Sanitary and Storm Sewer Lines
• Repaired Camera
• Chemically treated roots
• Assisted in repair of broken sewer lines
• Assisted Parks Department with cleanup from Festival in the Park
• Assisted Water Department in water meter reading unit repairs
• Cleaned Shop
• Initiated and receive bids on gas monitor; purchased a monitor
• Began fall root cutting and cleaning
• Cleaned lift stations
• Maintained Vactor
Surface Water
• Changed/Replaced Cl2 & So2 tanks and well houses/filter plant
• Repaired & rebuilt (internally) catch basins
• Replaced broken catch basin hoods
12
• Cleaned Street (sweeping & flushing)
• Took water samples
• Repaired culvert outlet & rebuilt Gloria Circle
• Vactored and Inspected Zoned Storm Sewers
• Photographed and kept records for storm sewer upkeep
• Inspected (Visual & Manual) Storm Sewer (Outlets, Inlets, Culverts &
Erosion Area problems)
• Updated Data Info. per. Storm & Surface Water
• Flushed water/ hydrant shut off valves
• Inspected contracted sites (residential) per. Sanitary & Water
• Performed connection locates
• Exposed buried inlet/outlet culverts and regulate flow
• Raised buried manhole castings in residential Blvds. (right of way areas)
• Repaired crushed culvert pipes (Laport Drive)
• Cut & replaced sunken asphalt due to erosion from collapsed man-
hole/catch basin
• Of located manholes (mapped) -14 Were raised and brought up to graded
level (3 are left to raise)
-There are approximately 23 “backyard” manholes which are exposed but
are not accessible with City equipment (equipment too large or heavy)
They are serving their purpose and do not need to be brought up to grade.
-There are approximately 85 manholes in the City of Mounds View right-
of-way (boulevards).
-9 of the 85 manholes are inaccessible due to structures being built on or
around them.
Shop
• Began installing snow equipment on trucks
• Installed auto-lube system on #123 (new loader)
• General squad car, staff car, truck, and equipment maintenance repairs
• Assessed staff cars and soon-to-be retired squads and recommend plan
for replacing needed staff cars
• Reposition “v” plow on skid loader to make it ride in a lower position to
save on wear to cutting edges
Streets
• Striped City-owned parking facilities and crosswalks
• Ongoing asphalt patching
• Received delivery of loader and dump truck
13
• Ongoing sign maintenance and replacement
• Gary Kardell retired after 29 years of service
Parks Department
Silver View Park
• Painted shelter building
• Field 2 – Re-did infield and warning track (safety purpose)
• Installed foul poles
• Painted park sign
• Pruned or cleared out island in parking lot and re-chipped
• Re-conditioned Frisbee golf course. General cleanup, installed sign posts
and re-chipped
• Replaced tornado slide at the playground
Groveland Park
• Removed weeds at tot lot and volleyball areas
• Re-painted City park sign
• Diseased and/or weakened trees removed and re-planted
• Trimmed bushes around tennis courts
Hillview Park
• Laid out soccer field w/goals
• Cleaned roller blade rink
• Trimmed bushes and chipped around building
• Graded ball field
Greenfield Park
• Repaired ballfield: infield and outfield, warning track, pitchers mound, base
lines etc.
• Replaced service door on storage door due to vandalism
• Repainted park sign
• Repaired roof due to vandalism
City Hall Park
• Cleaned up around marquee sign (weeds, shrubs and re-chipped)
• Weeded flower beds
• Prepared for Festival in the Park
• Prepared for Eagle Scout Project in which they replaced the timber around
the tot lot play area
• Graded ball fields
• Trimmed bushes around tower, treatment plant and Police Dept
Random Park
• Removed or trimmed bushes and shrubs
14
• Patched concrete ramp
• Fixed border around playground (straightened)
Woodcrest Park
• Maintained path
• Trimmed major trees
• Repaired signage
Community Center Maintenance
• Installed sidewalk (Southside of building)
• Installed patio with table for smoking area (Northside of building)
• Oversaw Gym floor replacement (caused by storm damage)
• Daily building maintenance
On a Daily or as Needed Basis Performed:
• Mowing of grass
• Irrigation maintenance
• Weed trimming
• Equipment maintenance
• Athletic field maintenance and set-up as needed
• Trash removal
• Tree trimming
• Shelter building maintenance
• Rough cut mowing, ditches and delinquent lots.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
November 24, 2003 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
7:02 P.M. 9
10
11
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12
13
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14
15
3. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, and Gunn 16
17
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 18
19
A. Monday, November 24, 2003 City Council Agenda. 20
21
City Administrator Ulrich requested that Item 8B be removed from the agenda. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Stigney. To Approve the Monday, November 24, 2003 Agenda as 24
Amended. 25
26
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27
28
5. PUBLIC INPUT 29
30
David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road indicated he watched the work session and is concerned 31
about the $150,000 to operate the Community Center. He then said that there seems to be some 32
Council Members that are in favor of taking over the Community Center but every time the City 33
does something like this it ends up costing more than anticipated. He further commented that the 34
City is not very good at running a business to make money. 35
36
Mr. Jahnke indicated that if the City takes this over there will be benefits and pay raises and 37
comp time to pay. He then said that he would like the Council to be very careful about making 38
this kind of decision because there have been bad decisions in the past and he would like to see 39
better figures before jumping into this. 40
41
Mayor Linke indicated that Council has asked for the numbers and for a further investigation into 42
the numbers from when the City had its own Park and Recreation department. He then 43
commented that the City brought in $90,000 and the YMCA is bringing in an average of 44
$40,000. 45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 2
1
Mr. Jahnke asked Council to remember to include the costs of having employees when 2
evaluating whether to take over the Community Center. 3
4
Mr. Jahnke indicated that Mr. Whiting had said when the Community Center was built that it 5
would pay for itself but it is now costing the City $150,000 per year. 6
7
Mayor Linke indicated he had made the comment that it would never make money as Park and 8
Recreation is a service to the residents but, hopefully, it would generate enough revenue to offset 9
a lot of the costs. 10
11
Council Member Quick asked Mr. Jahnke to provide a copy of the minutes that show that Mr. 12
Whiting made that statement. He then said that he remembers the opposite being true that Mr. 13
Whiting had cautioned Council that the Community Center would not make money but at best 14
would break even. 15
16
Mr. Jahnke indicated he had gone out to Hudson and Mr. Whiting told him that. 17
18
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this item is scheduled for the January 5, 2004 work 19
session where Staff will present a financial analysis. 20
21
6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 22
23
None. 24
25
7. JUST AND CORRECT CLAIMS 26
27
A. Just and Correct Claims 28
29
Council Member Marty asked for clarification on the copies of the Comprehensive Plan. 30
31
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that when the Comprehensive Plan was 32
produced the City did not make multiple copies and they are needed now as the Planning 33
Commission is going to be reviewing it. 34
35
Council Member Marty asked for clarification on Check Number 112189 for a plotter stand for 36
$2,544.00. 37
38
Finance Director Hansen indicated that it is used by public works for producing large documents 39
and was authorized by Council by resolution earlier this fall. 40
41
Council Member Marty asked for further information on the charge for Parks and Recreation 42
from Kennedy and Graven. 43
44
City Attorney Riggs said he could not tell specifically but said it is all within the retainer. 45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 3
1
Council Member Marty asked whether the amounts for the consultants other is going to be added 2
to the running total at the back. 3
4
Finance Director Hansen indicated that the matter has to do with a dispute between the City and 5
Mr. Harstad so it is not something that the City can bill them for. 6
7
Council Member Marty asked for further information on the $1,200 charge to the Community 8
Center project. 9
10
City Attorney Riggs indicated that the charges were for dealing with issues surrounding the 11
transfer of the management. 12
13
Council Member Marty asked what Will Kill would be repairing as there is a note about repairs. 14
15
Finance Director Hansen explained that the notation concerning repairs is a City named account 16
to allocate the cost to. 17
18
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Just and Correct Claims as Presented. 19
20
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 21
22
8. CONSENT AGENDA 23
24
A. Licenses for Approval 25
B. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, December 8, 2003 at 7:10 p.m. to Hold the First 26
Reading and Consideration of Ordinance 724, an Ordinance Authorizing the City 27
Council of the City of Mounds View to Set Water Rates and Surcharges Effective 28
With the January 2004 Billings 29
C. Consideration of Resolution 6137 Approving Change Order Number 4 for the 30
County Road H2 Street Improvement Project –Installing Pipe Railing 31
D. Resolution 6129, a Resolution Approving the Premise Permits for the Lion’s Club 32
to Permit Charitable Gambling at The Mermaid and Robert’s Off 10 in the City of 33
Mounds View 34
E. Set a Public Hearing for Monday, December 8, 2003 at 7:15 p.m. to Discuss and 35
Consider the Longview Estates Preliminary Plat 36
F. Resolution 6141 Approving the Disposal of Three Pieces of Kitchen Equipment 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Approve the Consent Agenda as Presented. 39
40
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 41
42
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 43
44
A. Charter Commission Amendments 45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 4
1
Mayor Linke indicated that his first question on the amendments is that these items came to 2
Council from the Charter Commission and he does not see the minutes of their Commission 3
meeting where it shows there was a quorum and he also only read 10 names on the Charter 4
Commission. 5
6
Council Member Stigney indicated that the judge that appointed them reduced the number. 7
8
Council Member Quick asked how a judge could over rule a law. 9
10
Council Member Stigney indicated that the statute provides the judge the discretion on how many 11
members to appoint. 12
13
Council Member Stigney indicated there were 6 members so there was a quorum. 14
15
Council Member Quick asked why the order was not presented to the City Council. 16
17
Council Member Stigney commented that the Council has no discretion over the Charter. 18
19
Mayor Linke indicated that for common courtesy the Charter Commission should alert and allow 20
citizens of the City of Mounds View the knowledge that there was a reduction in members that 21
took it from a minimum of 11 to make a quorum down to 6. 22
23
Council Member Quick commented that, if a judge fails to appoint, the City Council appoints. 24
25
City Attorney Riggs indicated there are a lot of issues at play but said that the judges have some 26
discretion and this is usually done by some type of order. 27
28
Mayor Linke indicated he wanted to postpone this issue until he has better information on what is 29
going on and the legalities of the change. He then said he has a real concern that this 30
Commission that deals with the City’s Charter was reduced without the knowledge of the 31
residents of the City of Mounds View or the City Council. 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Quick. To Postpone. 34
35
Council Member Stigney indicated that if there is an issue on the authority of the judge to make 36
the decision the City Administrator can obtain an answer on that question. He then asked 37
whether it is the intent not to take action on the proposed amendments until the questions are 38
resolved. He further commented that all the Charter Commission meetings are televised. 39
40
Mayor Linke indicated he did not have minutes to see how many members voted and who was 41
present at the meeting. 42
43
Council Member Stigney indicated that copies of the minutes are sent to City Hall and should be 44
on file and available. 45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 5
1
Council Member Stigney indicated he has no issue with this because he viewed the meetings and 2
saw what the action was. He then asked the City Attorney whether there was an issue with 3
regard to the legalities of the change. 4
5
City Attorney Riggs indicated he could review Chapter 410. 6
7
Mayor Linke indicated he would like to postpone to provide the City Attorney with time to 8
review the matter. He then said that the City would need to look at the original vote by the 9
residents of the City of Mounds View and whether that vote set out the number of members. He 10
then commented that he does not feel that the judge has the authority to change the number if it 11
was set out by a vote of the people. 12
13
Council Member Stigney asked whether there were any issues with the language in the 14
resolution. 15
16
Mayor Linke indicated that one has the changes designated but the other does not. He then 17
commented that they should both be formatted in the same way so that Council is aware of the 18
proposed amended language. 19
20
Council Member Stigney disagreed and said that there is a statement at the top of the document 21
that the section is an entirely new replacement section. 22
23
Mayor Linke indicated he does have some issues with some of it but does not want to discuss it 24
now as there is a motion to postpone the matter on the floor. 25
26
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To Amend the Motion to Postpone to a Motion to 27
Postpone Until the City Attorney Has the Information Requested. 28
29
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3(Linke/Marty/Quick) Motion failed. 30
31
Council Member Stigney questioned whether Roberts Rules of Order requires a motion to 32
postpone to contain a time certain. 33
34
Council Member Marty suggested not to exceed two months. 35
36
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Amend the Motion to Postpone to a Motion to Postpone 37
Not to Exceed Two Months. 38
39
Council Member Stigney indicated he did not see any reason to postpone for two months. He 40
then asked whether there is an issue with the 60-day timeframe wording. 41
42
Council Member Quick indicated he did not like how it was presented. 43
44
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 6
City Attorney Riggs indicated that, technically, that provision is not binding upon the Council. 1
The statute that applies is an acquiescence to say you have received the Charter amendment. He 2
then said that there are waiting periods, if adopted that allow challenge by residents. 3
4
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 5
6
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 7
8
Council Member Quick asked who the judge is. 9
10
B. Resolution 6140, a Resolution Approving a Newsletter Advertising Policy 11
12
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the newsletter advertising policy was updated and 13
Resolution 6140 would approve those updates. He then said that Staff would limit advertising 14
before content as a matter of practice. 15
16
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6140, a 17
Resolution Approving a Newsletter Advertising Policy. 18
19
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 20
21
C. Golf Course Manager’s Quarterly Report 22
23
Mayor Linke indicated that Ms. Burg was elected to the New Brighton City Council and will take 24
office in January. 25
26
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that the number of rounds did not increase as had been 27
expected. She then said that the average round was $20.00 per person and to meet the 28
projections that number needed to be $23.50 per person so Staff intends to look at changing rates 29
and restructuring fees to meet that point. 30
31
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated Staff intends to try to brand the golf course as the premium 32
executive course and that should not be hard to do. She then indicated that Clear Channel 33
intends to move forward with the billboards by approaching the state in a different way and Staff 34
believes that would be following the recommendation of Governor Pawlenty to seek creative 35
ways of financing. 36
37
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that there were a few unanticipated projects at the golf 38
course this year. One of those was to repair the ninth green the other was to install a catch basin 39
to catch grass clippings. She then commented that a lot of Staff time went toward repairing the 40
ninth green but it is now repaired. She also indicated that the drought cost them over 1,000 hours 41
for part time and full time staff with watering due to the sandy soils it had to be done every day. 42
43
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that there were 33,000 rounds of golf, 17,000 buckets of 44
balls, and 3,400 cart rentals. 45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 7
1
Golf Course Manager Burg reviewed a handout showing rounds compared to other courses and 2
said she thinks it shows Staff is doing a good job in this market and noted the driving range is 3
doing well. 4
5
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that the water level on the ninth hole was lowered and balls 6
removed which had not been done for at least two years and Staff pulled out over 20,000 golf 7
balls, cleaned them up and sold them. 8
9
Council Member Stigney asked for clarification as to whether this is a quarterly report or a five-10
month review and whether revenue and expenditures were through the end of the third quarter. 11
12
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated she was able to get numbers through October when she put 13
the report together. She then indicated that a copy of the report was received with the budget 14
information. 15
16
Council Member Stigney asked how much revenue was brought in and how much went out in 17
expenditures. 18
19
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that to the end of October there was $585,202 in revenue 20
and, at that point, it is $36,000 positive cash flow but there are still payments to be made and 21
revenue not recorded. 22
23
Council Member Stigney asked whether the course is making money or not. 24
25
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that the course fell short this year. 26
27
Council Member Stigney asked how short. 28
29
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated she was not sure how it would come out after all the final 30
figures are in but said she anticipates a shortage of $100,000. She then said that the course was 31
projected to lose $64,000 but because revenues did not meet the projected $735,000 there will be 32
a larger shortfall. 33
34
Council Member Stigney asked why the rounds of golf come out even at 33,000 rounds. 35
36
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that the figures were rounded so there were more than 37
32,500 rounds. 38
39
Council Member Stigney asked whether there would be a fourth quarter report. 40
41
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated she would do a fourth quarter report in January. 42
43
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 8
Mr. Jahnke indicated he is concerned about the $100,000 shortfall but is also concerned that Ms. 1
Burg has been elected to the New Brighton council and they have a golf course. He then said he 2
is concerned that her loyalty may be compromised and cost the City business. 3
4
Mayor Linke indicated that he does not feel the election to New Brighton council is an issue as 5
he is comfortable with Ms. Burg’s integrity, there are five people on the council so hers is only 6
one vote. And, her paycheck comes from the City of Mounds View so it is in her best interest to 7
make it successful. 8
9
Mr. Jahnke indicated he feels there could still be a conflict of interest because he feels she has to 10
look out for New Brighton. 11
12
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated she would like to make people feel comfortable and assured 13
everyone that if there is anything that would be a conflict she would abstain. She also indicated 14
that she is the President of the Golf Manager’s Association and works for the betterment of golf. 15
She then said she is not threatened by the great business the New Brighton course is doing and 16
her mission is to improve golf throughout the metro area but bring the business to The Bridges. 17
18
D. Authorization to Advertise for Receptionist Position 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich indicated the position description was amended slightly. He then 21
reviewed the changes with Council. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn. To Authorize Staff to Advertise for the Receptionist 24
Position. 25
26
Council Member Gunn indicated she still thinks this job can be part time rather than full time and 27
she thinks it would be a perfect job for someone who has kids in school starting at 9:00 a.m. and 28
leaving at 4:00 p.m. 29
30
Council Member Marty asked for the City Administrator’s opinion on the part time versus the 31
full time. 32
33
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that it would partially depend upon the market and he said 34
that with part time you do not get the full coverage you would with full time. He then said that 35
looking at what would work the need would be between 9:00 and 3:00 so it is possible to make a 36
30-hour position work. He further commented that he likes the expanded coverage that is 37
possible with a full time person but will not say that part time will not work. 38
39
Council Member Marty asked if it would be possible to have two part time people, someone for 40
morning and someone for afternoons to eliminate the need to pay benefits. 41
42
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the benefits with the AFSCME contract begin at 19 43
hours. 44
45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 9
Council Member Stigney indicated he feels it would be possible to work out a schedule that kept 1
the hours below the 19 hours requiring benefits. 2
3
Mayor Linke indicated that he does not feel it is a good idea to have two employees because there 4
is not continuity that is required for some of the tasks. 5
6
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Amend the Original Motion to Authorize to Advertise 7
for Two Part Time Positions Staying Underneath the 19 Hours. 8
9
Council Member Gunn asked what would happen if the City could not find two part timers. 10
11
Council Member Stigney indicated that Staff could come back to Council. 12
13
Council Member Quick indicated that he feels this amendment will make it more difficult to fill 14
the position and if the amendment is passed it will make it more difficult to find someone who is 15
adequate for the job and someone who will have a real reason to take the job. He then said that 16
the idea of no benefits takes a whole lot of people out of the running as they are not interested in 17
working toward the lower end of the pay scale with no benefits. He further commented that this 18
City has a history of hiring entry level people and letting them progress up the line to higher 19
levels of employment and he would like to see that continue. 20
21
Council Member Stigney indicated there are no facts presented that a part time person cannot be 22
qualified and there are a lot of people out there that would want to work part time. He then said 23
he takes exception to the statement and he thinks it is workable the way it is and, if not, Staff can 24
come to Council to discuss it further. 25
26
Mayor Linke indicated he appreciated the sentiment and appreciated the idea but he thinks that as 27
a position and as providing service to residents and looking at job duties that trying to split it up 28
will make it difficult to administer and hard to get work done. 29
30
Council Member Quick indicated that the proposal would make more work for the rest of the 31
Staff and cost the City money in the long run. 32
33
Ayes – 2 Nays – 3(Gunn/Linke/Quick) Motion failed. 34
35
Council Member Stigney indicated that the reason he supported going the other way is because 36
he is entirely against this. He then said that it is an entirely unnecessary position. He also 37
indicated that under the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities there is nothing about hearing 38
and he feels that should be listed in order to be a receptionist. 39
40
City Administrator Ulrich indicated that under physical demands it lists hearing and that is in 41
accordance with the ADA requirements. 42
43
Council Member Stigney indicated his view is this is a totally unneeded, unnecessary position 44
and he thinks the City does not need this at all is there is an automated system and this would 45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 10
create a position that would answer the calls and route them through the system when the system 1
already does that. He further commented that he feels this is an unnecessary expenditure and he 2
does not support it at all. 3
4
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 5
6
E. Resolution 6138 and 6139, Authorization to Advertise for Two New Police 7
Officer Positions (Referendum) and One Replacement Police Officer 8
9
Police Chief Sommer indicated that the Resolutions authorize to advertise for the two positions 10
created by the referendum as well as a position created by internal promotion to sergeant. 11
12
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolutions 6138 and 13
6139 Authorizing to Advertise for Two New Police Officer Positions and One Replacement 14
Police Officer. 15
16
Council Member Stigney asked what the dollar figure for the positions is. 17
18
Chief Sommer indicated it would be as set forth in the Law Enforcement Labor Services union 19
contract. 20
21
Council Member Quick asked if the City could post internally only for the sergeant position. 22
23
Chief Sommer indicated he would recommend that. 24
25
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
F. Resolution 6136, a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a Character 28
Generator 29
30
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6136, a 31
Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a Character Generator. 32
33
Council Member Stigney asked what happens to the old one. 34
35
Mr. Gammell indicated it is not working properly but it will be added to the excess equipment 36
list and sold as is. 37
38
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 39
40
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 41
42
A. City Council Minutes November 10, 2003 43
44
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 11
Council Member Marty requested the following changes: Page 7, Line 28 insert “are addressed”. 1
On Page 11, Line 21 change to Special Meeting Session. On Page 5, Line 24 delete the last 2
word “know”. On Page 6, Line 26 after higher prices insert “by the Mermaid”. On Page 9, Line 3
28 change last word from “the” to “their”. 4
5
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the City Council Minutes for November 10, 6
2003 as Amended. 7
8
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 9
10
11. REPORTS 11
12
A. Reports of Mayor and Council 13
14
Council Member Marty indicated he attended the Abbey Carpet open house and was impressed 15
with the building. 16
17
Council Member Stigney indicated that he had attended the open house and was impressed as 18
well. He then indicated that he had discussed the matter of abstaining from voting by unanimous 19
consent of Council and the City Attorney had recommended amending the Ordinance. 20
21
City Attorney Riggs indicated it would be a simple ordinance amendment. 22
23
Council Member Gunn thanked residents on behalf of the Irondale Marching Knights for the 24
emotion and financial support. 25
26
Council Member Quick invited Council Members to take a look at the manhole covers on his 27
block to see what he was talking about with the plow. 28
29
B. Reports of Staff 30
31
1) Golf Course Cell Phone Update 32
33
Council Member Stigney asked why there was a cell phone for the clubhouse and why the land 34
line is not used. 35
36
Golf Course Manager Burg indicated that there are no minutes on that phone and the Staff uses 37
the radio feature of Nextel to communicate without having to phone in. 38
39
City Administrator Ulrich asked Council to consider canceling the December 22, 2003 Council 40
Meeting and indicated that the City Attorney would attend the first meeting instead and there is 41
nothing scheduled for that agenda. 42
43
Council Member Stigney indicated that the Charter states that there must be two Council 44
meetings per month. 45
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003
Regular Meeting Page 12
1
Council discussed the matter and agreed to cancel the December 22, 2003 Council meeting if 2
there are no legal issues with doing so. 3
4
Police Chief Sommer handed out an organizational chart to Council. 5
6
Mayor Linke asked Staff to make sure that everything handed out gets in the public book. 7
8
C. Reports of City Attorney 9
10
None. 11
12
12. Next Council Work Session: Monday, December 1, 2003 13
Next Council Meeting: Monday, December 1, 2003 (Special) 14
15
13. ADJOURNMENT 16
17
Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. 18
19
20
Transcribed and recorded by: 21
22
23
Joan Lenzmeier 24
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 25
Item No. 08C
Meeting Date: December 8, 2003
Type of Business: CA
City Administrator Review _______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Resolution 6144 Setting the 2004 Meeting Dates
for City Council Meetings
DISCUSSION:
Based on the Council’s schedule of conducting a Work Session the first Monday of
each month and conducting Council meetings the second and fourth Mondays of
each month, attached it a proposed list of Council meeting and Work Session dates
for 2004.
Two legal holidays fall on dates that would otherwise be considered Council
meetings—Day after Independence Day (July 5, 2004 – in accordance with Section
3.10 of the Personnel Manual), and Labor Day (September 6th). For these dates,
the schedule reflects a Tuesday meeting date.
RECOMMENDATION:
Reschedule the meetings that fall on the identified holidays and adopt Resolution
6144 setting the 2004 Meeting Dates for City Council Meetings and Work Sessions.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 6144
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW OFFICIAL 2004
MEETING CALENDAR FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 412.191 requires that City Councils set an official
calendar for Council Meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Charter states that the City Council shall meet regularly at
least twice monthly as they may designate by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 105 of the Mounds View City Code states that regular
meetings of the City Council shall be held on the second and fourth Monday of every month
at 7:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has traditionally scheduled Work Sessions on the first
Monday of the month; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Code further state that if that Monday is a legal holiday the
meeting shall be canceled or held on another date and time; and
WHEREAS, July 5, 2004 and September 6, 2004, are legal holidays falling on a
Monday that would otherwise be a regularly scheduled Council meeting date; in
accordance with the City Code, these meetings dates have been rescheduled to the
following July 6, 2004, and September 7, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council does
hereby establish the Official City of Mounds View City Council Meeting Calendar for the
year 2004 as shown in Exhibit A and that unless otherwise posted, all City Council
meetings are to begin at 7:00 pm.
Adopted this 8th day of December, 2003.
____________________________________
Jerry Linke, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT A
WORK SESSIONS COUNCIL MEETINGS
January 05 January 12
January 26
February 02 February 09
February 23
March 01 March 08
March 22
April 05 April 12
April 26
May 03 May 10
May 24
June 07 June 14
June 28
July 06 July 12
July 26
August 02 August 09
August 23
September 07 September 13
September 27
October 04 October 11
October 25
November 01 November 08
November 22
December 06 December 13
December 27